Actually, cynic mentioned “insurance,” which we also do - home insurance (can cover you in the case of arson, theft), life insurance (covers a family if someone is unfortunately murdered). Insurance wouldn’t protect you like a police force would.
Actually, saying the police “protect” you might imply they** prevent** crime. What police do is respond to crime, which mostly means they come in after the crime is committed. One can make the case that catching criminals and locking them up does prevent some crime – but in the individual case, where you are the victim, the protection is minimal.
They do both Vern. They patrol neighborhoods, which helps deter criminals. And, protecting does include responding to crime. For example, if a police officer pulls over a drunk driver, he is protecting the other people on the road. Your car insurance certainly pays for any damage to your vehicle and passengers, but it won’t protect you in the same way that removing the drunk driver will.
I agree – but patrolling in the density needed to provide protection to all citizens is beyond the capacity of most police departments – which is why so many upscale neighborhoods and commercial establishments have their own security.
You’ve made the point very succinctly – locking up the violent criminal offers some protection to the public, but not to his victim.
About the same thing that the military has to do with healthcare…'nuttin.
I don’t see yours. Sounds like
it’s a users pays ananology. If I shouldn’t have to help fund the healthcare of others, then why should I help fund others protection from crime.
Sorry, but this analogy makes no sense.
I’m not advocating anything. What I’m doing is refuting your preposterous notion that we don’t have private “insurance” of various kinds – including private security services.
When you left service, did you keep your barracks bag?…if only we abolished taxpayer funded police, then the poor could afford to purchase private security services for their own neighbourhoods.
